Paying for War

In addition to being hell, war is also expensive. The US has dumped about $1 trillion into the Afghanistan and Iraqwars already and current plans are to keep shoveling cash and lives into these pits.

Naturally, the money to pay for the wars has to come from somewhere. Like most federal spending, much of the war money has come from loans and deficit spending. It has also been proposed that there be a war tax (which has been done in the past). It is supposed to be relatively small, but is still a tax.

On the positive side, we will have to pay for the wars eventually and a good conservative would argue in favor of a pay as you go strategy. After all, why take out loans when we can save money by paying now?

On the negative side, the tax is a tax. While Democrats are cast as pro-tax people, they might well balk at a tax that supports wars. While Republicans like to present themselves as fiscal conservatives, they are also devoted to appearing to be anti-tax. Hence, they will tend to balk at a tax-even if it pays for the wars they started.

My view is that we should have never been involved in either war and throwing even more money into them can be seen as throwing good money after bad. But, of course, we are stuck in those pits and are thus obligated to get out in a way that is ethically correct and politically effective. That is, we need to resolve the conflicts and doing so would seem to involved restoring one country we broke and building a nation out of what seems to have never been much more than a loose collection of tribes.

Of course, we could help pay for the wars using the traditional methods developed by the Romans-make the conquered territories pay for their conquest and rebuilding. But, contrary to what our detractors say about us, we are not very good at being truly imperialistic and seem to have no stomach for empire. Just imagine, though, if we were as bad as they say we are…the wars would be done and paid for.

Reader Interactions

Comments

I agree with you. But only “payment” is your primary concern. W. Bush was a maniac and a war criminal. He should have been prosecuted. Why not next to Milosovich and his ilk in international court. When we are going to call a spade a spade? This person launched a war without any justification, rhyme or reason. He overblown the whole issue. Yes, the Trade Center was attacked? But the whole world condemnded it, and this man regardless of this issue, would still have attacked conquered because he wanted to tell his daddy that he is right and he was wrong. It was just a personal ambition. The righest make Obama do the wrong decision, the public pressure, and general Machrystal. Why not fire this idiotic looking general. Have not we heard that war is too serious a business to be left to generals. Let us prosecute few, if not outrightly slaughter like Mussolini and the Romanian dictator what was his name?

I’m assuming, that in order to be consistant, you want Colin Powell prosecuted for the same reasons, as he was Secretary of State, and presented the following verbal assertion to the UN Security Council:

“there can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more.”

and when asked if he believed Hussein was trying to obtain nuclear weapons:

Damn right prosecute him. Insure that the next time someone gets up in front of the world to make a case for a war of choice that he’s got real, hard, irrefutable evidence. Not just a bunch of cobbled together best assumptions. Yeah. Hussein claimed he had WMD’s. Why would anyone make that kind of claim if he didn’t. Because he was nuts. That’s why.

Colin powel should not be an exception. Why? He sided with him throughout this ordeal, and only resigned when there was an inner conflict with Rumsford and some other. He did not resign as a protest against war. He was calling leaders of Turkey trying to bribe them and went to various African countries and successfully bribed the. You may have seen only couple of days ago someone named Diminijac, who is 80 years old and is being tried in Germany. Why not Bush? He is a war criminal. What is definition of war criminal? I can send you one, if you do not know. Again, Colin Powel praised and supported Obama only few days before the election. Please do not tell me the story of his piety. This man has no scratches of battle wound anywhere on his ass, yet he got the best of deals and decorations on his chest. Saddam was bluffing about WMD at the most. Same way I bluffed when walked in the dark alleys of Las Angles, and cornered by hoodlums and posed as if I have a gun in my pocket. Saddam Hussain was a fit person for Iraq, just like Taliban were fit for governing Afghanistan.

90% of Congress agreed with the evidence and even funded the war. Are we going to prosecute everyone for war crimes? Obama is still doing the ‘war criminal’ work. Are we to prosecute him too? All accomplices.

There is, of course, the ethical aspect of the wars. Attacking Iraq certainly does not seem to have been adequately justified-and the reasons given all turned out to be based on untruths.

While Afghanistan provided a place for terrorists to train and organize, that is because the area is without an effective government. It is not clear that we will be able to build a nation there and it is also not clear that we have the moral right to do so.

The article is about use of nerve gas in the first gulf War. Any philosopher or logician would probably point out to you that past possession does not prove present present posession just because a madman claims he has them. And the soldier being quoted in the article says that the US and Europe gave Hussein the weapons. Don’t try to lead me or Ron Paul into a war of choice based on this evidence.

Bush’s decision to go to war should not be criticized on the basis that he falsified intelligence.

It should be criticized based on this question: Did the intelligence presented justify going to war with Iraq? If Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, should his regime be destroyed? Those who challenged Bush’s war plans, most of them agreed that Saddam probably had WMD, but said we should not invade. It may have been a mistake, but it was an understandable one. “I told you so” fixes nothing.

“Saddam’s goal … is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed.” — Madeline Albright, 1998

“Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement.” — Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

“There’s no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat… Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He’s had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001… He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn’t have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we.” — Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

“What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad’s regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs.” — Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

“The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.” — Bill Clinton in 1998

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.” — Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

“I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons…I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out.” — Clinton’s Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

“Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” — Al Gore, 2002

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” — Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

“I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force – if necessary – to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” — John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

“As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” — Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

“Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production.” — Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

“Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts.” — Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

Is this the Henry Waxman, cong Nosehairs who claimed the deficit reduction act of 2005 was unconstitutional? Hey, I’m just saying that when we send men into a war of choice we’d better have more ducks–not just daffy ones based on the claims of Hussein– in a row than were lined up in 2002.

Bush falsified the intelligence, and colored them in his own peculiar way and that is why he liked his intelligence chief at that time, and decorated him before leaving the office. There has been more than enough stories on this issues and nothing is hidden. Let us produce this guy to the world justice court next to Milosovich, and what is his name–The one they just got–Karadacizh or something?

“Bush’s decision to go to war should not be criticized on the basis that he falsified intelligence. ”

Why not? Making a case based on falsified evidence is both a moral error and an error in critical thinking. This is true whether data is being falsified to push a war or to push a theory about global warming.

If Bush were secretly passing emails to Dick Cheney plotting how to make sure the public didn’t become aware of evidence that showed there was no wmd (I’m not sure what sort of evidence that would have been) then he would have been guilty of falsifying intel. Otherwise, everytime, I as an Intelligence analyst present a Most Likely Course of Enemy Action to my superior, and it doesn’t occur, I would be guilty of falsifying intel.

The most credible intelligence sources at the time from several countries ,inclduing Germany, France and England, concluded that Saddam probably had wmd. It was also pretty logical after the Iran-Iraq War and then he didn’t allow proper inspection. Then of course, there’s the rumors that the Russians helped him ship it to Syria.

And yes he did have them in the iran/Iraq conflict. Was he a danger to us at the time? When a wife gets shot by her husband in a domestic dispute, shoudl the police ask her: “you mean you knew he had a gun a year ago and you didn’t leave?”

The alleged evidence used to justify the war seems to have been adequately discredited. While intel analysts have a duty to provide possible scenarios, the basis for such scenarios should be based in reality.

Saddam has nothing, nada, and Bush knew it very well. His buddy Rumsford told him. Besides, there are other countries who has WMD for instance Israel. Bush just wanted to tell the world that he was smarter than his father, and can finish the job. This man has an average intellect and virtually no speaking abilities. With his talent, skills, and mental abilities, the most he should be gotten–only a mayorship of a small town in America, population 10 people where the mayor runs the gas stations, is a fire marshall and delivers babies also. Bush could have been a perfect match for this job. In spare moments, he could have also talked to plants, trees, mountains, rivers, and can boast that God speaks to him also–of course once he boasted that he is only afraid of the real Father.

Hmm, but he was Governor of Texas and President of the United States for two terms. I’m wondering how, if Bush was soooo stupid how he planted evidence and mangaed to get the free world to follow him to war. Any brilliant insights MR. Bumper Sticker?

That is wonder of the modern science when nincompoops get elected and reelected. Tell me you never heard of bufoons in politics before? come on! Don’t you know the current Italin PM is a joke and a bufoon, he is reelected twice probably three times. Read Italina press about him and his sexual jokes and downgrading of women? The ex presidential candidate was invovled in a sex scandal. He barely become vice president. Joe Biden was accused of stealing speech excerpts from a British politician. If relection is a yardstick of anything good, then our senate and congress is doing wonders. All of them are relecting machines. There has been senators and congressmen who are members for more than 50 years through some idiotic reelecting machinery. Teddy was elected in 1962 and died only few months ago, barely retired from office. Harry Reid is senator for more than 30 years. Don’t you think he is a bufoon. Mike Hickabee, he gave parole to a murderer who just killed 4 police officers. The governor of NJ (just lost election) was driving on the wrong side, and caused fatal injuries to himself and other patorl officers. Governor of Texas is a low IQ job, you remember the predecessor of Bush as governor of Texas? She was not that enlightening either. And, now the current governor of Arkansas, and the former governor of Minnessotta, (Jesse Ventura) and the disgraced governor of NY who caught red handed with a prostitute, and the current governor of Nevada who had sex scandal and is invovled in a bitter divorce suit. Maybe you heard a senator from Nevada who had sex scandal and is refusing to leave office. All these current buffons can become US president. I can go on, but today is Saturday, and it is my day off from my minium paying job, and I need to spend time with my kids.

Here’s the other really stupid fact that the Bush Haters don’t think of:

If Bush and Cheney really falsified intel and knew there was no wmd, why did they invade? Weren’t they concerned about the political fall out from not finding it? If they found it, they’re heroes. If they don’t: villains.

The simple answer is that they really believed they’d find wmd, but were wrong.

Funny you should mention Texas. A Conservative state in which the economy is doing well. The two most Liberal states, California and New York are about to go bankrupt. who couldn’t see that coming? DOH!!!

Hmm. Funny how that goes. Don’t bother arguing though, kernunos. The economy will forever be something that liberals are willing to conduct social experiments with, at cost to the common man.

What the world really needs is more Marxist intellectuals. They make it all better. What would a stinking business man know about creating jobs anyway? Capitalist pig is all Bush is. We need more lawyers to be president.

Both the right and the left experiment with the economy. The left usually overspends and the right usually overspends while saying they want to spend less.

A reasonable role for the state in the economy is the same basic role it plays in general: keeping people from harming others. Of course, the state also controls the monetary system, but this role should be a conservative one-that is, it should take steps to keep things smooth and stable, while allowing individuals and companies to take risks. Naturally, the price of failure needs to be shifted onto those who fail and away from the public.

Oversimplifying things greatly, my view is thus that the state should 1) protect the citizens from the misdeeds of their fellows and 2) not play sugar daddy to the corporate/finance world.

Kind of an open definition. The point I would make is that the ‘right’ is less tax-burdensome on business which attracts business(what I have been saying all along). This in turn creates more jobs(AMAZING yet simple) and more tax revenue comes into the government through secondary and tertiary means. Thus Texas(right) > California(left)/New York(left). Try and rationalize your way out of that. Balls in your court.

I’m not a CA expert, but their problem seems to be the result of spending too much relative to their tax income. So, it is not a high tax problem but a high spending problem. CA has a massive economy, so their problem is self-inflicted. They need to reign in their spending or increase taxes.

Low taxes does not guarantee a good economy. What is needed is enough taxes to pay for legitimately needed services (roads, police, defense, schools, and so on).

I suspect we do not actually disagree. After all, my view is that the tax burden should be only what is needed for said services and should not go beyond that. Of course, waste and pork must also be battled. In short, we need to make sure that whoever is in office is not a politician. 🙂

Texas does have a slight advantage over most other states, namely the oil industry. However, CA shot itself in the head by increasing spending and not increasing revenue. The base solution is the usual: spend less or increase revenue. Spending more and decreasing revenue doesn’t work.

I’m not sure if it is a “liberal” thing. That is, it is not necessarily the case that CA and NY are having problems because they have many “liberals.” Unless, of course, you want to define a liberal as someone who spends beyond the revenue available. In that case, George Bush would be a huge liberal. So would Reagan. Clinton would not.

I would agree with Bush but I have said all along that he is pretty ‘left’ as far as I am concerned except for a few issues. I disagree with Reagan. He increases revenue by cutting taxes. He was able to spend more. You need to either a.) take additional math classes or b.) re-evaluate how you think a Capitalistic economy works. The people that agree with you or vice versa are in charge and they are failing. They get a D unless they pass this health care bill and cap and trade. Then it will be South of F-. The more you hammer the top, the more it gets passed down. When there is no more to squeeze from the top then they start taking from less and less wealth.

That is not true. The so-called “neo-conservatives” ripped up the empire rather badly. America makes its best gains from good will and economic expansion. We lost a great deal of good will during the Bush years and those years enabled the bubbles blown in the Clinton era to burst. So, the blame gets to be shared.

The common error of these folks is that they put what is no good ahead of the good. Naturally, they think they are advancing their own private goods and perhaps they might even think this is in accord with the general good.

I’m failing to see where all this good will has been lost. This was the line of liberals all through the Bush years, and I think it’s a lie. For one thing, Europe mostly hated Bush not the US. We work with the Bundeswehr (German Army) here in Germany quite often, and can tell you they fricken love us. The rest ofthe world is the usual who’s-who of America haters: Russia, Islamo-Fascist regimes. To paraphrase from John Ringo in his book: The Last Centurian: The world may like to burn a lot of effigies and stomp on a lot of American flags, but when the feces hits the fan, the poor and down trodden like nothing more than to see US soldiers walking through their neighborhood. And I’ve never heard a German say anything bad about Americans–and Europeans have no problem with being snobby. They didn’t like Bush is all. Now that Europe’s choice is in the White House, we’re all singing kumbaya again. And how has this perceived loss of good will affected us, if it’s even real? I can’t see it. You may hate Microsoft (liberals are of course inclined to see evil in all big business, but ignore all the good) but you use their products, right?

Our economic power is more important than imagined good will. Lots of money creates good will and keeps a lot of people happy.

As bad as things were under Bush, I think Obama made them worse in a very short time. The spending is phenominal. We won’t dig our way out from under this debt in our life time. Medicare will collapse in about 8 years. As much as ibs hate it, it’s out domestic spending that will kill America, not bad wars or military budgets. Obama doesn’t get that at all.

And it shows in his ratings: This week he posted the lowest approval rating for a president at this point in his first term.

I’m just going by what the polls say, which might be biased or not accurate.

While goodwill can be worth having and does make things easier in some ways, it is wisest to not put your faith in the good will of others. That said, diplomacy can be very worthwhile. After all, it works in everyday life (we don’t threaten our friends or co-workers with death, but rather use persuasion) and can presumably work on a larger scale as well.